Bellwether: Santorum blows past Gingrich in Pennsylvania, now leads Romney by one

posted at 8:37 pm on February 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

I know what you’re thinking. “Who cares, AP? It’s his home state and their primary isn’t until the last week of April.” True. Pennsylvania might not matter much. But these numbers are important right now because they might — might — give us a window into how the race is going next door in Ohio, one of the key states voting on March 6, a.k.a. Super Tuesday.

Ohio could matter a lot.

The statewide poll of 500 Republicans showed Santorum’s support more than doubled from 14 percent six weeks ago to 30 percent, putting him in a statistical dead heat with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who increased his support to 29 percent from 18 percent. Santorum’s gain was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s loss, as his numbers here plunged from 35 percent to 13 percent…

James Lee, president of Susquehanna Polling and Research, which conducted the poll, said Santorum’s growing strength among Republicans suggests conservatives are tuning in to the race.

“Rick speaks their language. They believe he’s the real deal, but they seem to draw the line when it comes to moving on to the fall,” Lee said. “They don’t seem to think he’s electable. That’s the real conundrum he’s in: How does he persuade mainstream voters he’s the guy who can win in November?”

One way he could solve his electability problem is by beating Romney in Arizona and/or Michigan on February 28. If that happens, then suddenly Ohio might be in play. And if Ohio’s in play, then the odds of a brokered convention may increase rapidly. Here’s what Sean Trende had to say about it in making his point about the regional split among the candidates that I wrote about earlier:

Super Tuesday will likely be tougher for [Romney]. Four of the five largest states — Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Georgia — are Southern (or in Oklahoma’s case, culturally Southern). Romney will likely win Virginia by default, but he will probably fare poorly in the remaining three. If Gingrich can maintain his strength in the South, he will likely win them.

On the other hand, Romney will probably do well in Massachusetts, Idaho and Vermont. Santorum seems well-positioned to win North Dakota.

So the viability of a three-way split probably comes down to Ohio, which has a fair number of evangelicals, though not to the degree that Tennessee, Oklahoma and Georgia do. Santorum has some strengths he can draw on in the Buckeye State, as his blue-collar message could play well even among Republicans there. If he wins, it means that we probably do have a deeply divided GOP, with Gingrich taking the anti-Romney vote in the South, and Santorum taking the anti-Romney vote in the Midwest.

The last poll of Ohio, conducted by PPP, had Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum within four points of each other, but it was taken back on January 28-29, before Santorum’s clean sweep in the midwest on Tuesday. Needless to say, things have changed since then — enough so that PPP is tweeting tonight about its new national poll due out tomorrow that will show Santorum leading. Quote: “What’s really scary for Romney is the numbers if Newt dropped out…Newt, by staying in, is all the sudden Mitt’s BFF”. The wrinkle in Trende’s analysis, then, is that Gingrich might be fading so rapidly — witness his collapse in Pennsylvania cited above — that he can’t hold those southern states which we currently expect him to win. If that happens and Santorum starts winning in the south too, Romney’s in deep, deep trouble.

But let’s say Newt bounces back (there are two more debates before Super Tuesday) and holds the south, preserving the regional split and the dream of a brokered convention. Would that convention actually be a nightmare in practice? Jay Cost, the Weekly Standard’s election guru, e-mailed me in response to this post with a warning to be careful what I wish for:

A brokered convo would be an unmitigated disaster!

(a) Romney will go in with the most delegates, so he’d be the odds-on favorite to win. So, in that case we’ll still wind up with an Obama-clone, only he’ll be bloodied up all to hell. Terrific.

(b) What happens if we get some dark horse? They start running from scratch in late August? No advisors, no infrastructure, no fundraising? This kind of approach worked back in the 1870s when there was a permanent party org that basically ran the whole show, but there isn’t anymore, and worse the campaign finance laws really keep the party from pulling the weight for the candidate on the ground. And we don’t have something like organized labor on our side to pick up the slack, either.

What about no debate prep? Remember how bad Fred Thompson and Rick Perry did when they decided to jump in on a lark?

(c) It would be a mess to watch on television. How many ballots are we talking about? What happens if it goes past the lease on the convo center? How does that chaos look compared to the Donks orderly convo? Doesn’t it play right into O’s hands…”I’m the only grown-up in the room!” Remember: it’s been literally two generations since we’ve had a messy convo. The public won’t put it into context because the collective memory only has these carefully managed coronations. Our brokered convo plus Obama coronation = massive bounce for the One.

Good points all, but let me counter. One: A dark horse would have grave weaknesses, but depending upon who he/she is, I’m not sure the dark horse would be weaker than Romney. Like Cost says, even if Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich survives a brokered convention to emerge as nominee, they’ll be brutalized by the process. It may be that you need a clean slate with a new candidate at that point. Two: The absence of any organization for the dark horse is a concern, but it’s a concern that party leaders will begin to deal with long before the convention begins. If Super Tuesday comes and goes and the race is still deeply divided three ways, you’ll start seeing stories in the press about some sort of organization quietly being assembled to get to work for a dark-horse nominee just in case it comes to that. The RNC and conservative Super PACs will also start gearing up to go to war for the nominee in case he has no organization of his own. Don’t get me wrong: The organizational question mark is a serious concern, but we’re going to end up playing a weak hand no matter what in November. Serious concerns will abound until the polls open on election day.

But back to Ohio. Cost replied to my points about the convention with this:

I think for that to happen, Daniels or somebody would have to toss in during the primary period. He could still do it late. Imagine a scenario where he gets in before the CA filing deadline, wins the CA primary, starts building an organization, leads in the Gallup poll among GOPers, performs best against Obama, etc. That would be a scenario like what Bobby Kennedy planned to do in 1968.

Otherwise, you’d have a legitimacy problem as well. Romney could credibly argue that the “people” had “voted” for him.

I think the big test for all of this is the Ohio primary. If Romney can’t win that, Daniels could still get on the ballot in CA, NJ, NM, MT, UT and a few other places. I think the establishment GOPers are probably equally scared of Santorum as they are of Gingrich, in that they fear both of them would lose (correctly, IMO). So Ohio is for Romney v. Santorum what Florida was for Romney v. Gingrich — Romney has to close it out there or else the bigwigs are going to intervene.

Right. If he can’t seal the deal in one of the perennial key swing states on Super Tuesday, you’re likely to see chaos the day after. That’s why the new Pennsylvania poll maybe matters. And why Ohio definitely matters.

Update: Corrected a careless error above: Jay Cost used to be at RealClearPolitics, now he’s at the Weekly Standard. Sorry for the mix-up.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Actually, it’s been found that some of the re-translations actually took words to mean different things in their own language than could’ve been meant in the root language.

Oh, so we aren’t arguing about the Bible in general, or even specific translations, but some translations at some point in time. I bet I can find some examples of a lot of some things that take some words to mean some different things.

Also, I’m sure the Protestants and Calvinists would love to take you up on that claim.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM

You appear to be sure of a lot of things. Beings sure of something doesn’t make it so.

Who are all these people, and what did they do with all the smart, fun Hot Air commenters with whom I used to have intelligent conversations? I know I’ve been away for awhile, but this really saddens me to come back to this.

Eh, it’s a general fact when dealing with the internet that, if your site remains alive and big enough for long enough, you’ll eventually start attracting less than stellar elements to it by means of osmosis.

The more important question – Why do you so badly want to vote for a flip-flopper that was too stupid to realize he was being hoodwinked?

Why do you “moderates so love candidates that bend with the wind?

The East-Anglia e-mails must be real embarassment to both you and he.

As for Reagan, the guy did sign one of the most comprehensive bills for the expansion of abortion rights in California history. Even though he later said that he regretted the move, it came after he was governor of California.

Now, go ahead, do your best to respond. Come on champ, you can do it! And by that I mean you cannot do it in a reasonable fahsion!

LMAO – Asked and answered (Romney still hasn’t backed of RomneyCare, btw). Thought you didn.t care about social issues?
Let’s stick to the point….please forward a Link of Reagan proudly proclaiming himself a “progressive” just like your guy Mitt.

Santorum is a Catholic. The Catholic Church is vehemently opposed to the death penalty.

I think that stuff like “Contraception is not okay” and what he just said about being against women serving in combat because in his view we have “other types of emotions” that would lead us to ” do things that may not be in the interest of the mission” suggests Santorum may struggle to get 40% of the popular vote versus Obama.

Pennsylvania? There’s no way the GOP wins statewide elections in PA without the votes of the socially moderate/liberal, fiscally conservative suburbs of Philly and Pittsburgh. If Santorum – a fiscally liberal/social conservative – is the nominee, they’ll vote massively for Obama as they did for Casey Jr.

Anyone who believes Santorum is viable as a nation-wide candidate is living inside the bubble. I doubt he wins 10 states.

Wow, when my main argument was that the introduction of new arguments would help people to change their mind as new facts were presented, and you think that the emails are an ‘embarrassment’ against me and Romney? If anything, combined with the polling data from Gallup, it only confirms the fact that evidence to a contrary point, when combined over a period of time, will change minds. Mitt Romney’s wasn’t any different.

As for the Gallup POLLS (yes, there were more than one other than the ‘exaggeration index’ one you seem to be clinging to a life raft), Gallup is a well trusted polling firm that has been quite accurate over the years and is generally considered to be top notch. There are other polls that back up Gallup’s own finding, but I thought, obviously incorrectly, that you wouldn’t look a fact in the face and scoff at it. Your idiocy obviously goes so much deeper than I thought it did.

Also, what does you answering my facts have to do with social issues? Oh, I see, you can’t be bothered to try to answer my statement on Global Warming with any facts of your own, so you move right back to Reagan. Alright, we’ll play this game.

Here’s an entire page worth of links and stories related to Reagan’s more RINO-tastic moments. Reagan is still quite conservative, but even he was, at times, a RINO. But, as you’ve shown above, you don’t much care for facts, so I doubt you’ll let all this get in your way either. He might not have called himself a RINO when making these decisions, but then again actions are supposed to speak louder than words (apparently a phrase not so true for True Cons).

Also, yes, the fact that I keep on presenting facts to back up my point, while you rely on denying them without any evidence of your own, would suggest that I am way too smart for you.

He ‘crafted’ Romneycare. Right, because as we all know, bills come from the Executive branch, and the Legislative branch signs them.

I’ll ask you your own question: are you really this dim?

As for Global Warming, once again, are you dim? There was a majority of people during the post Katrina period, and still a number of people number into the 40% of the general population, who felt that Global Warming was man caused. That’s because the scientific evidence at the time, as it was presented to the public at large, did seem to support that consensus.

Romney might not have gotten it right the first time around, but he isn’t wrong for having shifted his opinion when faced with new facts. This is actually a trait to be, I dunno, celebrated? You don’t seem to think so but, again, you’re wrong pretty often.

As for the final point, yes, really. It’s a fact of life. Get used to it. Even your ‘principled conservatives’ have adjusted their tone and message in purple or red-leaning states in order to win elections. Ronald Reagan was far more liberal in California than he was in the White House. It’s just a fact about politicians all over the world.

WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:12 PM

This is what Mittens said then:

On Day Of Signing Ceremony, Romney Told Fox News He’d “Authored” The Measure. Wednesday in an elaborate ceremony at Faneuil Hall, Romney told Fox News that he ‘authored’ the bill, (Scott Helman, The Boston Globe, 4/16/06)

Then Mittens said:

Romney Said Final Legislation “Incorporates About 95 Percent Of My Original Proposal.” “The final legislation incorporates about 95 percent of my original proposal. So I think, overall, it is a major step forward. We will have health insurance for all our citizens without a government takeover and without new taxes required.”(Jennifer Barrett, Newsweek.com, 6/7/06)

As for Global warming:

He has changed his position at least 3 times in 2011.

As for Mittens “progressive” comment:

Have you ever considered he labeled himself a progressive because he is one?

You and other Mittbots need to head over to Mittens Central and get your talking points ironed out.

If you think that just stating the obvious is harping your a twit. You can’t argue that inequality rightly or wrongly is going to be a major issue in this election. And Obama and the media will make MItt the poster child for the plight of the have nots . If you can’t see this you are blind. I actually think it is rather selfish of Mitt to even stand for the nomination for I know he is smart enough to this even if you are not. He’s a bad fit for this climate just as mccain was a bad fit for the war weary 2008 election. You can spout and spew all you want but these are the facts. I’m no newt fan but one thing he had right “Obama will laugh at Mitt”. And that will be before he gets to foriegn policy Mitt’s strong suit

I’ve made a statement about that earlier. For one thing, it’s pretty much ridiculous on it’s face for an executive to say they authored a bill, mostly do to the facts of the procedure. As for the 95% remark, it’s PR standing. Mitt Romney issued dozens of vetoes related to Masscare, and each and every one of them were rejected. Mitt Romney could’ve either stomped his feet about a bill that was, and still is, highly popular in Mass or he could go with the political winds and try to retain enough popularity to fight another day on another issue.

But, that’s politics and governance.

Alright, provide for me the text of these ‘three changes’ in 2011. We’ll see if he actually changed his view, or if it’s just rhetorical nitpicking on the part of your ‘source’.

As for the progressive comment, I stick with the ‘it’s state politics’ argument.

Really, you can’t just deny every fact that doesn’t agree with you. You work with it and rework your argument/beliefs around the new facts. You can keep the core ideology, but you have to change your message and specifics to keep up with new facts on the ground. That’s life, and you don’t win the game of life by sticking your head into the ground.

And once again lacking in facts you resort to calling me a plant. Well done my friend, you’re completely wrong and the only thing you’ve done from my perspective is to start building up your reputation, in my book, as an idiot.

Right, because Gallup is so obviously just a mainstream media tool.
Really, you can’t just deny every fact that doesn’t agree with you. You work with it and rework your argument/beliefs around the new facts. You can keep the core ideology, but you have to change your message and specifics to keep up with new facts on the ground. That’s life, and you don’t win the game of life by sticking your head into the ground.WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM

Sorry, I had a little trouble hearing you, what with my ‘head-in-the-ground’, and all.
Anyway, I stick by my 12:13 AM post:

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Polls, news and, well, facts in general disagree with you on the majority part. Otherwise, you’re golden.WealthofNations on February 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

And I reject any such poll results as being skewered/influenced by Maurice Strong and George Soros.
False polling claims about the Public’s perception of AGW have been as prolific as the false conclusions of the scientific data.listens2glenn on February 10, 2012 at 12:13 AM

It doesn’t mean you have to agree with it, but know this: I believe it.

NO you don’t win. name one person you persuaded to your side. absent that you’ve wasted your time and your petty insults. If romney stated your opinions in a debate and won over as many people as you have everyone would consider it a loss. But you think you’ve won. self-delusion is a very dangerous symptom of much deeper problems. Very sad you exhibit such

I presented facts, polling and data to back up my claims. He responds with talking points and emotional ad hominems. I’m sorry, but in terms of a debate, that usually means that I ‘won’ regardless of how many people I may or may not have convinced.

I’ve made a statement about that earlier. For one thing, it’s pretty much ridiculous on it’s face for an executive to say they authored a bill, mostly do to the facts of the procedure. As for the 95% remark, it’s PR standing. Mitt Romney issued dozens of vetoes related to Masscare, and each and every one of them were rejected. Mitt Romney could’ve either stomped his feet about a bill that was, and still is, highly popular in Mass or he could go with the political winds and try to retain enough popularity to fight another day on another issue.

But, that’s politics and governance.

Alright, provide for me the text of these ‘three changes’ in 2011. We’ll see if he actually changed his view, or if it’s just rhetorical nitpicking on the part of your ‘source’.

As for the progressive comment, I stick with the ‘it’s state politics’ argument.

As for talking points, yeah, you’re certainly one to talk.

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 12:14 AM

So what you’re trying to say is he LIED when he said those things? Ok.

June 2011: In June, a day after declaring his candidacy, he said this when asked about global warming:

“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course,’’ Romney said. “But I believe the world’s getting warmer. I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that … so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’

August 25,2011:

He was asked about global warming at a town hall meeting in Lebanon, New Hampshire, and said he believed the world is getting hotter and humans contribute in some way to the change.

“Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.

October 29, 2011:

“While I do think the world is getting warmer, I don’t think humans contribute to that.”

So, basically all but the first of his points are ‘do I think the world’s getting warmer? Probably, yes, but I don’t think humans are the cause of it’… which is pretty much my point that, while he thinks the world is indeed getting warmer, that at first he was no longer sure that it was caused by humans, a position that was strengthened by October.

Once again, that’s my point. New facts and events changed his mind, eventually solidifying his new opinion. Same thing happened with the people Gallup polled.

As for Planned Parenthood, whether you like it or not, PP is a pretty large operation in Massachusetts that contributes a lot of money to the cause of abortion. Not allowing them on the board wouldn’t have changed that, and would’ve only served as a symbolic ‘take that’ to the Dem legislature that would’ve been overturned anyway.

So, even then, your sources don’t so much as disprove my theory as it does give yours credence in your own mind and people who are inclined to agree with you. Interpretation of events and reasoning is funny like that.

And once again lacking in facts you resort to calling me a plant. Well done my friend, you’re completely wrong and the only thing you’ve done from my perspective is to start building up your reputation, in my book, as an idiot.

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM

You might not be a plant, but you most definitely are a Mittens drone.

Who are all these people, and what did they do with all the smart, fun Hot Air commenters with whom I used to have intelligent conversations? I know I’ve been away for awhile, but this really saddens me to come back to this.

aero on February 9, 2012 at 11:53 PM

I have to admit that I’m one of the new posters here; but frankly aero, you are spot on.

In the past the HA that I read and enjoyed had wit, great satire and none of the acidic bile so prevalent around here lately.

I hope things improve. I wanted to be a part of this great blog for years and felt privileged to join.

You’re at least a little more reasonable than some of these others. You can at least admit that none of these guys are true red conservatives. I have no illusion that Romney’s a full-on right wing, dyed to the wool red Conservative. I do feel that he’s center-right and, given the options, is the best of the bunch.

My goal posts are still right where they were. Your facts, while corroborating your view, also corroborate my own. It’s actually not all that uncommon occurrence as interpretation can be quite the b!tch.

Also, I’m quite aware that this isn’t Mittens Central. The fact that Christine O’Donnell managed to get a majority of the support here is evidence enough of that.

*Yawns* I’m sorry, but if you’re really going down to calling me a ‘do*chebag’, then this argument between the two of us is well and truly over. I’ve put forth my own set of facts and data to support them, you’ve just gone for emotional personal attacks and hyperbole. Your backup here is proving to be more fun and challenging, so I’ll have to bid you farewell.

Oooooooh, my name is that of a famous book written by an Enlightenment thinker who helped to greatly inspire and guide Classical Liberal thinking on the economy that serves as the base point of my fiscal conservative beliefs. It obviously means I’m some kind of Obama plant~

If you are a Mitt adherent, in spite of your nom, then you are fully entitled to your beliefs and opinions of him, and so are all others.

The field is horrific, from every angle, at a dire time in the history of the land. Hey, I was for him in 2008. This year soured me on him because he started this turdfest and now all can’t get rid of the stench. His followers on HA have been true hyenas.

Friendly advice – enjoy the forum, give, take, but consider that no one wins or loses anything, except time. If it’s a bit of wit/fun, not all is lost.

Cheers, indeed. We fight for the same, in the end, if you’re not an Obama plant.

I accept your apology. This is a rough year, and things do tend to get heated. Things get said, and feelings can get hurt. Know that I have followed your posts for a bit, and I do have a bit of respect for you, even if our opinions on candidates differ.

As for the turdfest, eh, politics if a rough game. Romney got overwhelmed in 2008, so it’s only natural that he’d be taken every precaution in 2012. As for the other Romney posters, to be fair, this forum has been taken a prolonged sh!t on people who support Romney. A bunker mentality was bound to form eventually. Personally, I like to come out swinging.

Indeed, it is wit and fun. Debates and discussions are actually one of my favorite past-times. As for winning and losing, eh, it comes down to personal opinion. Although, personally, I still think I at least won my rounds with Tim.

Indeed, cheers. With Santorum, even if I don’t like his social values, I can at least appreciate that I can accept him as the nominee, if grudgingly. Gingrich was another story, but thankfully it looks as though it’ll be a story with no more chapters for now. Obama is the man that needs to be beaten like a red headed step child here, after all.

So, basically all but the first of his points are ‘do I think the world’s getting warmer? Probably, yes, but I don’t think humans are the cause of it’… which is pretty much my point that, while he thinks the world is indeed getting warmer, that at first he was no longer sure that it was caused by humans, a position that was strengthened by October.
Once again, that’s my point. New facts and events changed his mind, eventually solidifying his new opinion. Same thing happened with the people Gallup polled.
As for Planned Parenthood, whether you like it or not, PP is a pretty large operation in Massachusetts that contributes a lot of money to the cause of abortion. Not allowing them on the board wouldn’t have changed that, and would’ve only served as a symbolic ‘take that’ to the Dem legislature that would’ve been overturned anyway.
So, even then, your sources don’t so much as disprove my theory as it does give yours credence in your own mind and people who are inclined to agree with you. Interpretation of events and reasoning is funny like that.

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Now I know your a hack. You first said to me he has been consistent on global warming since he started his campaign.

His position strengthened by October? That the best you got? REALLY?

He changed his position on global warming a total of 14 times since 2002.

You just said earlier most of his VETOs all got overturned anyways. Why not stand on principle against Planned Parenthood then? He issued 33 vetos. Why didn’t he veto planned parenthood too?
Why could that be? Could it be that he supported it?

My goal posts are still right where they were. Your facts, while corroborating your view, also corroborate my own. It’s actually not all that uncommon occurrence as interpretation can be quite the b!tch.

Also, I’m quite aware that this isn’t Mittens Central. The fact that Christine O’Donnell managed to get a majority of the support here is evidence enough of that.

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 12:44 AM

They corroborate your view in your own mind. But the facts don’t lie, you’re the one spinning.

And your under handed swipe with Christine O’Donell just shows how unhinged you Mittbots have become.

Here’s a list of sad facts about Santorum.
The guy has the diagnoses right not the prescription.
Brokered convention and West for the win!Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 12:29 AM

That link is a good one, and deserves more time than I can devote to it right now. But this is a start:
Opposition to “Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that overturned state bans on discussing birth control with and providing it to married couples” does not constitute “letting states dictate what legally married heterosexual couples can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.”
It does mean he was/is opposed to government funding of contraceptives. And I don’t disagree with that.

Now, I had not mentioned anything about a time table. Time tables are for Democrats, my friend~

I merely said that his position changed overtime as facts emerged and became more prevalent. You and I have shown that this was true. It doesn’t make me a hack friend, but it doesn’t necessarily make you wrong either.

As for abortion, there’s making substantive stances on principle, and then there’s denying one of the largest organizations in your state a place on a health board when the veto will be easily overturned, doing little more than just damaging your political capital for little to no benefit.

What I find hilarious is that you bring up that he issued 33 other vetoes on this issue, and yet you single in on the one thing he didn’t veto that actually makes sense not to veto, both from a structural perspective as it concerns the strength of the organization in Massachusetts and from a political, realist perspective.

Also, he couldn’t ‘veto Planned Parenthood’. He could only deny them a place on the Health Board (once again, an easily overridden veto for little gain). Even if the veto did stop them from getting on the board, Planned Parenthood would’ve been able to operate freely on Massachusetts regardless, and likely would’ve just lobbied members of the board to support them. At least with them on the board they have to speak up for the positions they take, not just have a fall guy on the board take it for them.

This is a part of the conservative movement of today: a bunch of illiterates who learned earned everything about conservatism listening to AM radio and sycophants like Levin and Rush.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Hilarious.
This is a part of the “moderate” movement of today, a bunch of illiterates like WealthofNations and Joana who learned everything about what conservatism is by listening to Mittens, the Maine Twins, Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski and many others.

I hope you realize that, rhetorically, he could’ve meant that you’re trying to get up onto a horse (i.e., win an argument) that’s impossible for you to get on. In other words, he’s saying you should quit while you’re ahead (or, as ahead as a twit who resorts to calling the person opposite him in a debate a do*chebag can be).

That link is a good one, and deserves more time than I can devote to it right now. But this is a start:
Opposition to “Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that overturned state bans on discussing birth control with and providing it to married couples” does not constitute “letting states dictate what legally married heterosexual couples can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.”
It does mean he was/is opposed to government funding of contraceptives. And I don’t disagree with that.

listens2glenn on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 AM

What? Did you just make that up? I don’t even know what to say.

Griswold vs Connecticut is about the right to use contraception, not the funding.

You mean the endorsement he made on September 15th? The day after the primary? You mean the same endorsement he made to try to get Republicans to rally around Christine O’Donnell, you know, the thing you True Cons whined about Establishment Republicans not doing.

He didn’t endorse her during the primary (didn’t endorse Castle either). This was a case of ‘rally around the candidate’… you know, that thing you True Cons said center-right Republicans didn’t do. That thing you all will refuse to do if Mitt Romney wins the nom?

What changed so significantly that made Mittens change his position on Global Warming 3 times in 5 month period?

Mittens had already announced he wasn’t running for re-election when he signed Romneycare. He issued 33 other vetos and you said they were all “stylistic” in nature as they all got overridden. He had nothing to LOSE as he wasn’t even running for re-election, why not stand on principle and VETO the planned parenthood, and funding for abortion, they would have been overridden, but at least he has a clear conscience.

Hilarious.
This is a part of the “moderate” movement of today, a bunch of illiterates like WealthofNations and Joana who learned everything about what conservatism is by listening to Mittens, the Maine Twins, Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski and many others.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 10, 2012 at 1:04 AM

Oh, as usually you’re wrong. I’m very far from a moderate. Heck, I didn’t vote for Bush Jr. because I considered him to be too moderate for my taste (I voted for Howard Phillips who was running for the Constitution Party).

Oh, as usually you’re wrong. I’m very far from a moderate. Heck, I didn’t vote for Bush Jr. because I considered him to be too moderate for my taste (I voted for Howard Phillips who was running for the Constitution Party).

joana on February 10, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Wow. What happened? Bush at least ran as a conservative.

If Bush was too moderate for you, how is Mittens so perfect? When he is to the LEFT of McCain in 2008.

It’s called political capitol. It’s something you need in order to be able to effectively change the course of the conversation in your state to a battleground you prefer rather than your enemy’s.

You know, the thing he had to spend huge amounts on just to ensure that there wouldn’t be single-payer in Massachusetts and that some form of private health care insurance would continue to go on. There are some things you can fight on that won’t cost you, and some battles that you shouldn’t fight because they’re Pyrrhic and will end up costing you in very necessary battles.

As for global warming, I still contend that, aside from the first instance from ‘man-caused’ to ‘I don’t think it is’, these weren’t changes. As for the time frame specifically, there’s a lot of things that were going on: dire predictions of the environmental lobby were being shown that they weren’t coming to pass in this time frame, the shadow of Copenhagen and East Anglia still hung heavily over head and more and more scientists were beginning to come out against AGW.

Think of the fat kid’s scene from Willy Wonka, with the fat kid acting as Mitt Romney’s opinion on AGW and the chocolate being the new rush of facts and scientific data either being refuted (in the case of support of AGW) or proven (in the case of AGW skepticism). The pressure built up over time, it didn’t instantly change his mind. Even when he joined the skepticism of AGW it took another few months for him to solidly say that he didn’t think man caused Global Warming. Opinions that are ground in and drilled into one’s head with years of data, predictions and scientific back up aren’t instantaneously changed when opposing data and facts come. It does take time (as the Gallup polls show, it even took a while for the public to absorb all of this and start dropping their belief in AGW in droves).

You mean the endorsement he made on September 15th? The day after the primary? You mean the same endorsement he made to try to get Republicans to rally around Christine O’Donnell, you know, the thing you True Cons whined about Establishment Republicans not doing.

He didn’t endorse her during the primary (didn’t endorse Castle either). This was a case of ‘rally around the candidate’… you know, that thing you True Cons said center-right Republicans didn’t do. That thing you all will refuse to do if Mitt Romney wins the nom?

WealthofNations on February 10, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Why did 24% of those “center-right” Republicans (see “moderates”) vote for the Marxist (Coons)?

Why did 17% of those same “center-right” Republicans vote for Harry Reid over Angle?

It’s the “center-right” Republicans that always throw a hissy fit and end up voting for the democrat if they don’t get their way.

While us conservatives are always told to get in line and support their “center-right” candidates.

Oh, I dunno… they were bad candidates who ran terrible campaigns and managed to get out debated by the likes of Harry Reid and Coons?

You know, that could have something to do with it.

But, we’re not talking about how the poor performance of candidates in a campaign can affect the outcome of an election. This was about Mitt Romney… hey, wasn’t someone here getting up in arms about someone supposedly moving goal posts? Someone should really get his/her attention, they’d be outraged by your display.